NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Epiphany

For a long time, the JonBenet Ramsey murder struck me as an intractable mystery. The more I learned about the case the more unlikely it seemed that JonBenet could have been attacked by an intruder. It definitely looked like an inside job. The "ransom note" was certainly phoney, since there had been no kidnapping. It must have been written by either John or Patsy Ramsey. There was only one problem. The Ramseys had called the police, very early in the morning, shortly after discovering the note. If they had written it to cover up their own role in the crime, then they would certainly have not called in the police while the body was still in the house. Sooner or later it would be found in the basement and at that point it would be clear that the note was phoney. It would have done them no good and in fact it did serve to cast suspicion in their direction from day one. So why wouldn't they have, at the very least, destroyed it before calling 911? Given these circumstances, it seemed that an intruder must have committed the crime after all. But how could this person have entered and left the house leaving no sign of his presence, and why would he have left a potentially incriminating note without taking his victim with him?

A panel of experts was convened to analyze the note's handwriting. They ruled John out, but were unable to do the same for Patsy, though it seemed "unlikely" that she could have written it. This fateful conclusion had a decisive effect on both the future of the investigation and the public's perception of the case. Suddenly all eyes were on Patsy and a bandwagon mentality took over. Comparisons of her handwriting with that on the note appeared in the tabloids, with special emphasis on certain points of similarity; a lawyer named Darnay Hoffmann intruded himself in the case by hiring "experts" of his own, who, as might be expected, determined in no uncertain terms that the note was definitely written in Patsy's hand. An "expert" on content analysis, who had first insisted the note could not have been written by Patsy, changed his mind and decided she must have written it after all. All over the Internet, in forums devoted to the case, a growing number of case aficionados decided for all sorts of reasons that Patsy must have killed her daughter, possibly in a rage over bedwetting, possibly out of jealousy, possibly during a battle with her husband, and then written the note in a crude, "over the top" attempt to point away from her own guilt.

To many, the logic seemed inescapable. All the evidence pointed away from an intruder, so it must have been an inside job. John had been "ruled out." Which left Patsy, who hadn't. So she must be the one who wrote it. What other possibility was there? This logic clearly colored people's perceptions, of Patsy, of the note, of the handwriting evidence, of literally every aspect of the case. After all, the note had been written on her pad, with her own sharpie pen. When fibers from Patsy's sweater were found intertwined with the cord of the "garotte," that "proved" she must have constructed that device. The fact that anyone could have used Patsy's pad and pen, and that her fibers could easily have been transferred to the cord from JonBenet herself, who had been in close contact with her mother earlier that day, were all too easily overlooked.

I remained deeply puzzled. First of all, Patsy struck me as a truly devoted mother and her public appearances seemed sincere, while John seemed strangely cold and detached. Secondly, the note contained expressions more likely to occur to a man than a woman, such as "foreign faction," "monitor," "law enforcement counter-measures and tactics," "scanned for electronic devices," "99 percent chance," "constant scrutiny," "Don't try to grow a brain." To my eyes, Patsy's writing style as a whole was totally different from that of the note, despite certain letter to letter similarities. I wondered what John's writing style was like, but since he'd been ruled out, there seemed literally no interest at all in examining any of his exemplars.

What bothered me most, however, was the incontrovertible fact that the Ramseys had called the police so early in the morning, while the body was still in the house, which was not consistent with the staging implied in the note. If they were involved, there's no way they'd have called in the police so soon. Unlike the many defending the Ramseys, I was unable to accept the intruder theory. But I was unable also to accept that Patsy could be involved, mainly because it made no sense that she would have called the police on herself, handing over a note that she herself had written, a note that would have done her no good in any case, since there had clearly been no kidnapping. Something was missing.

Then, one day, out of blue, the following example of John Ramsey's handwriting suddenly appeared on the Internet:

As I studied it, a chill literally went down my spine. The resemblance to the note seemed uncanny, and deeply disturbing. So how could John have been ruled out? And what if he were ruled in, what would that mean? My mind started racing, and as I reviewed the case in the light of this new possibility, I felt I was actually having an epiphany. I realized that the 911 call was not made by "the Ramseys," that in fact there was no such animal as "the Ramseys," but two separate individuals, Patsy and John. Patsy was the one who made the call, John was not. If the note had been written by John, and Patsy was unaware of that, then suddenly everything fit into place.

33 comments:

I have not really followed the JBR case but I thought that your theory was plausible. Now, having seen the video of the breaking site (at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html), I am not so sure how certain it is that there was no entry into the house (and your whole theory depends on that).

Some cobwebs and a shard of glass seem scant "proof" (to this untrained eye) that there was no entry. Maybe you could explain those details in more detail?

The police examined that window and reported there was no sign of forced entry. At some point photos were released that showed thick layers of perfectly intact dirt and debris on and around the window sill. At some point a detective sympathetic to the Ramseys (Lou Smit) attempted to demonstrate that an intruder could have entered via that very small window opening -- but from his strained effort to fit through that tiny space, it became clear to all but the most fanatic Ramsey defenders that entry could not have been achieved without very serious smearing and other displacement of all the dirt and debris.

The cobweb revealed in the video is only the most recent example of why law enforcement experts such as Kolar feel sure that no one passed through that window the night of the crime. What's not evident from the video is the fact that the window opening is extremely small. No one could have entered or left without displacing that cobweb and also leaving all sorts of other very obvious evidence of his presence. Nothing of that sort was found.

How difficult would it have been for JR to take the phone out of PR's hand and say, "No, the note says don't call. Let's wait a while. Don't put her life in jeopardy." He was a CEO for goodness sake and used to telling others what to do. And there is evidence BR was there. Kolar's book confirms that BR's voice is on the 911 call saying, "What did you find? Please, what do I do?" That just does not sound like JR acting alone to me.

I'm willing to keep an open mind about your theory, but the above sounds like BR was the one who struck the fatal head blow. I think his parents covered it up as best possible to make BR think he didn't harm his sister. I think they were loving parents who would do that for their child.

Apparently the first 911 call was a hangup, so possibly that's what did in fact happen, John may have stopped her the first time. But he couldn't hover over her all morning could he? So she called a second time and got through.

I've never heard any evidence that Burke's voice could be heard on that call. Here's a link in case you're curious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFMrNtTPaSY

Patsy sounds pretty convincing to me. Some have called it an act but let's face it she was not a professional actress. Her extreme agitation tells us why she made the call despite the warnings -- she was simply out of her mind with panic.

Why would you think BR struck the blow simply because of some report his voice could be heard on that tape?

And once again, if both Patsy and John were in on it together they would either have waited to call the cops until after the body had been removed from the house, or else called early and destroyed the note.

In the 911 call she clearly says "we need an....Police, we need the police..." WHY would she say "we need an"? Because she was going to ask for an ambulance....WHY would she need an ambulance? It was a slip of the tongue. IMO.

I've listened many times to that recording and I've never been able to make out what Patsy says at the beginning. It's some sort of fragment. I've read she says "We need 'em, hon" but I don't hear that either.

I thought she started to say "we need an..." too then she changed what she was going to say. I don't know what happened in that house that night..but it creeps me out to think of the horrors that went on there w/the family OR an intruder. I have a gut feeling they knew she was dead before the cops got there..something went terribly wrong.:(

Why would you think BR struck the blow simply because of some report his voice could be heard on that tape?

-- I think his voice IS heard on the 911 call, but I don't think that gives enough information to determine exactly WHAT the exchange is referring to. Simply a distraught possibly RESIGNED Patsy quizzing Burke as to what he found, what he did. I certainly don't think the exchange the way I hear it gives any indication of Patsy being accusatory, but woeful and spent.01:25 or so in the call..

911 Operator: Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?PR to a male child: Bay-bee, what did you find? What did you do?Male child: I'm sorry.

This "I'm sorry" could be something as simple as him not wanting to agitate his mother any more than was necessary. We don't know what it refers to. Listen to it. The only thing it proved to me was that Burke was awake (going by process of elimination is how I determine it was Burke) at the time of the 911 call.

If there's a copy on the Internet of the recording you're referring to, please post a link, so I can listen too. None of the versions I've ever heard contain that bit of dialogue, but maybe it was edited out.

Steve Thomas confirms that no one outside LE except a few aerospace engineers have heard the enhanced 911 call. I don't believe there is a version of it out there. I think if people say they hear BR on the tape, it's wishful thinking or an overly active imagination.

I do agree that PR sounds genuine during the 911 call, and no, she was not a professional actress. Doing a dramatic reading in a pageant is far different from calling 911 when your daughter is missing. I don't think PR was a good enough actress to fake that. So if she didn't fake it, then JR was the perpetrator or BR was and JR was covering for him, something I don't think JR would do.

I just now heard a version of the recording that some claim has Burke's voice on it. I didn't hear it, all I heard were some clicks and some other noise, probably crosstalk. As we've learned from all that reverse speech analysis, it's all too easy to hear meaningful words in random noises. I admire Steve Thomas for challenging the DA and the Ramseys and digging more deeply into the case, but it's clear he went overboard in an almost frantic attempt to "nail" Patsy.

And yes, Patsy sounds like what I'm sure she was, a frantic mother.

I don't see BR as being anything but a co-victim in this case and I feel very sorry for him. I do wish he'd cooperate with the police, though.

Even if there was a voice heard on the tape, no professional analyzer would say it was Burke without analyzing his voice against it. It is hogwash to say it was Burke - not a fact - just an assumption.

What strikes me most about Burke is that he has never once defended his parents, either publicly, or, to my knowledge, privately. Nor has he ever explained exactly what the Ramseys meant when they claimed they never spoke with him about what happened that night. That truly sounds incredible. It would also be interesting to learn what sort of interaction he had with the Ramsey lawyers. Was he coached about what to say when he was interviewed by the police or at the Grand Jury proceeding? To my knowledge he's never given anyone the opportunity to even ask such questions, and he probably never will.

All VERY suspicious for sure.

So no, I don't think Burke will ever go public with his experiences and his thoughts, because he obviously knows some things he and his father don't want made public. Does that mean I think he was involved in the murder or coverup. Absolutely not. But I do think his silence speaks volumes. He certainly has some secrets.

Perhaps Burke is afraid of his father and/or wants to make sure he is not cut out of his inheritance. I think John Ramsey is 70 years old now. Perhaps we will have to wait until John Ramsey dies of old age before Burke is willing to come forward with any information.

What is difficult about this case is that it's not easy to figure out what went on in that house and who in the family did what. I read a long piece about this that was published back in 1999 in the New York Review of Books on the 'Perfect Murder, Perfect Town' book about the case. Some of the experts, including (Dr. Cyril Wecht, I think) said that the police didn't know who to charge because they couldn't pin it on one of them as long as it looked like both of them were involved. When you don't know which family member did it, you can't really pin it on any family member.

Well, as I see it, if both were involved the 911 call would not have been made when it was. And since an intruder makes no sense it has to be one of them and only one.

The ONLY reason for suspecting Patsy is that she wasn't ruled out as writer of the note and John was. Other than that it all points to John. As I see it, the decision to rule him out was THE huge mistake and the turning point in the case. If you rule him back in then it becomes clear that he and he alone did it and covered up by staging a fake kidnapping.

Oh my goodness! Are you kidding me? Has this note from JR been confirmed as legit? If so it just made my skin crawl. I just did a quick prelim analysis and it truly does meet the threshold criteria of a match. Even the untrained eye can see the uncanny similarities. Where did u get this note? I can't believe that SOMEONE can't see this for what it is. And the idea that JR killed her, wrote the note (with or without PR's help - really doesn't matter in the big scheme other than het as an accomplice), planned on dumping the body, but PR got in the way before he went to dispose of the poor little girl is the most logical theory I have come to as well over 20 years of my own research. It is also possible that JR had her body in that suitcase at some point (one of the few unreleased facts in the case) and planned to take her out the basement window (i.e.., the scuff mark on the wall) but could not do it for some reason. He (maybe he and some of his perverted friends) killed her, maybe by accident, or maybe she was old enough to start fighting back, or threatened to expose them. This may account for the few pieces of "intruder" theory evidence. It Had to be an Inside job. With this new piece of evidence it really does bring John into clear focus. I can't believe how powerful and convincing the "john didn't write the note narrative" was to exonerate him. Had SOMEONE done their job early on and at least connected him the ransom note, the case would have been solved relatively quickly. The fact he was "ruled out", and everyone accepted it, blows my mind. Does anyone know if the Grand Jury saw the handwriting evidence about John?

The legal document reproduced above has never been questioned by anyone in a position to know, and it's been circulating on the Internet for many years. At one point I emailed the Ramsey's lawyer, Lin Wood, asking him to confirm or deny that this was a sample of John's writing, and he never responded. I was in touch with Pam Paugh, Patsy's sister, at one point, via internet chat, and invited her to take a look at this document. Her response was "Yes, that's John's chicken scratch."

I agree, it looks a lot like the ransom note. In fact I put together two displays comparing exemplars from this document and the note, and there are certainly several striking points of resemblance. See http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html

Imo such evidence is not sufficient to prove anything, but it certainly ought to make us think twice about why John was ruled out. My guess is that this document was never seen by the handwriting "experts," nor presented to the Grand Jury, as it was in all likelihood not among the exemplars John chose to present to the investigation team. My guess is that John is ambidextrous and that this was printed with his left hand.

Imo the decision to rule John out was a travesty, so I share your outrage.

Doc, if your theory is correct and JR had planned on disposing of the body before any call was made to police, when would JR have done that? Certainly he couldn't have done it during the night because PR might have woken up to find him gone, and then discovered JBR missing too. So why the phoney kidnapping note if he couldn't dispose of the body? I'm confused on this point.

Good question. I don't think John would have attempted to dump the body the night of the crime. As you say it would have been too risky. I think he had a more sophisticated plan in mind that would have been much more effective if he'd been able to carry it out. I've gone into the note and the plan behind it in some detail in a previous blog post. Here's an excerpt, explaining what John could have been planning for the following morning if Patsy hadn't called 911:

"Convince Patsy to take Burke and go to stay with friends, so they would be safe while he dealt with the kidnappers. Then drive the car to the bank to collect the ransom. . . .He could then find a remote phone booth and call his home from there. This would represent the kidnapper's call. Assuming he had an answering machine, the machine would pick up the call to record the "message." Of course there wouldn't be any, but the call would now be registered in the phone companies records.

He would then return home and move the body from the basement to the trunk of the car. Since the garage is attached to the house no one would see him do this. That night he would dump the body in some remote wooded area, and later claim he was delivering the ransom -- and the note also, as requested by "the kidnappers." He'd tell the police that the kidnappers took the ransom and the note and left without returning JonBenet. Later her dead body would be found in that same area."

NB: The note was addressed to him and made it clear that it was up to him to raise and deliver the ransom, so it wouldn't have been difficult for him to convince Patsy to take Burke and stay with friends while he dealt with the potentially dangerous "kidnappers." It's also important to understand how easy it would have been for him to claim the kidnappers wanted the note returned -- after all it was hand written by one of them and might incriminate that person. He could have written out a copy or entered a copy into his computer, so he'd be able to show the contents (but not his handwriting) to the police. Patsy and some friends who'd been shown the note would then testify to the accuracy of his copy.

We have to remember that this would have been a desperate plan devised by a man in a desperate situation, so it's not necessary to see this as the perfect plan. There are certainly a lot of things that could have gone wrong. But as I see it, only such a plan or something a lot like it can explain the contents and circumstances of the note.

Interesting. I agree that JR was, indeed, a desperate man in a desperate situation (and a very selfish man who cared only about what he stood to lose if people found out). So why on earth would he have let PR make that phone call?? It would seem to me that it would be very easy for him to convince PR NOT to call the police; that her daughter would surely be "beheaded" if she did and then she would carry the burden of her death the rest of her life. I believe JR knew he could put this horrifying fear into her; he knew JBR was everything to PR. Why do you suppose he didn't try -- or try harder -- to prevent that call or, if he did, why did she go against his advice?

I'm not disputing your theory at all. In fact, you are the only one who has put so many pieces of this puzzle together. But it's always those leftover pieces that baffle me.

As well they should. Every detail of this very complicated case has to be considered, for sure. But it would be a mistake to think we can account for everything. The logic of the case tells us that John and Patsy could not have been conspiring together, that one, at least, must be innocent. And the logic also argues very strongly against an intruder, since nothing about that theory makes any sense at all. Finally, when we look carefully at all the known facts of the case, especially the note itself and also the testimony of both John and Patsy, it becomes clear that John and not Patsy has to be the one who perpetrated this horrible crime and the coverup as well, including the writing of the note. I won't go into all the details here, but they are certainly covered in considerable detail in this blog.

So. If there are certain other details that seem puzzling, that's only to be expected, because we have no way of recreating what happened and what was going on the minds of John or Patsy during that awful night and the following morning.

All I can do at this point is no better (or worse) than what anyone else can do, i.e., make some educated guesses. In that spirit:

I have a feeling that Patsy may have suspected John that morning. It could have been how he acted or something he said, something in his eyes or in his demeanor. The note was pretty scary, and should have scared her into NOT calling the police. But it's possible that at that moment she was more frightened of John. Which could also explain why she called her friends to the house. I have a feeling she may not have wanted to be alone there with John. Later, of course, her suspicions were clearly dispelled, primarily, I'd think, as a result of his being "ruled out" as writer of the note, a finding that was widely reported (via a Newsweek article) surprisingly early, early in Jan. as I recall, based on the all too brief analysis of two "experts" hired by John's attorneys, who were supposed to be two of the best in the business.

But at that moment, while reading the note and digesting its meaning, and discussing what to do with John, it's possible that it could have occurred to her that something was very wrong and that he might possibly be in a very dark and dangerous place. So the call would not have been only to report a kidnapping but also a call for help.

There's no way John could have prevented her from making that call without making her even more suspicious and more determined to make it. There is no way he could have controlled her every move all morning long.

The above is just a guess, a suspicion. There could have been some other dynamic at work that we'll never know about. But one thing is for sure. At least two versions of their story is out there and one of them has to be a lie.

As always, you have given a very plausible explanation. I think most wives know their husbands pretty well. They may not know every little secret their husband carries, but they certainly are accustomed to their routines, habits, moods, etc. And I have always felt that PR may have suspected her husband that morning because of his behavior (he HAD to be acting a little strange if he had just murdered his daughter and was in the process of trying to cover it up). In fact, I have always felt that PR may have even suspected he was molesting JBR. I believe PR noticed every detail about her daughter (she groomed her for beauty pageants after all) and would most likely have noticed a change in her daughter's behavior or, possibly, have noticed the trauma to her private area. For that matter, I believe BR may have also had suspicions along those lines. So, I think you might be right in your suggestion that PR may have actually been calling "for help", not just to report a kidnapping. And if it is true that there was an aborted 911 call before the actual one, perhaps JR was successful in getting her to hang up the first time.

I always thought it was very premature to "rule out" JR so early on. I remember that well. And you're right -- once he was ruled out, no one even bothered to suspect him and all focus was on either an intruder or PR. I think this horrific crime could have actually been solved if they looked more closely at JR.

I spent 5 years as a 911 dispatcher and was always very good at telling genuine 911 calls from staged ones and Patsy's call always seemed genuine. It really sounded to me like a distraught mother, in a lot of panic and someone who genuinely didn't know where her daughter was. I had blindly believed what I read that she was the ransom note writer so I could never reconcile in my mind how she could write the RN and fool me on her 911 tape. But if she didn't write the note and wasn't involved in the coverup that would explain her authenticity in the call. I always believed both the Ramseys were involved but several pieces of the puzzle didn't fit and those were always Patsy's pieces that didn't fit.

Thanks for your informed input. The 911 call always seemed real to me as well. Patsy was literally hyperventilating and clearly in great distress. Only one of several reasons for believing her to be innocent.

I to feel the most likely person to have committed this crime to be JR I agree with all of the points you make and indeed it makes sense.I have 2 things that came to mind one of those is I felt that the head wound came first and as he would not have known the damage internally as no visable marks I felt that was possibly why the carrots was then used as he would then feel a full autopsy would not have been conducted as the garroting was obvious cause of death . The other thing that came to my mind was the point in the ransom note about adequate size bag could have been because that would have allowed him a big enough bag to transport body in .

I too think the head wound came first. But apparently she continued to breathe afterward. I think John strangled her to make sure she was dead, but did it with a ligature rather than by hand, possibly because he wanted to distance himself from this unthinkable act.

Many others have suggested that JonBenet might have been placed in that suitcase, but from what I can see in the photos it's hard to imagine her body would have fit.

I don't think he was thinking of the suitcase I meant an adequate sized attache this was inserted into the note possibly to give him a big enough bag to put the body in if you see what I mean as to the head wound if an autopsy had not been done the only thing to know about would have been a sexual assault so I think the intention was murder and the garrote was done to fake a sexual deviant intruder as in his mind the clear visual cause of death would mean they wouldn't do an autopsy and find out about the head wound imo anyway I think your blog excellent its just very sad that imo the culprit will never be identified.

DocG, I have already posted in "Scenario" thread I was awestruck from first to last post at your ability to irrefutably answer who murdered JonBenet. As a previous post in this thread stated, "You are the only one that has put so many of the pieces of the puzzle together for me" and incredibly, as I read this thread something that always felt "wrong" was, "Why the garrote? JonBenet was mortally injured and most likely close to death just from the massive head trauma, which has been explained clearly as coming from behind and that makes sense to me as a efficient, calculated "business-like" attack executed by John. The exact post of your comment was "I think John strangled her to make sure she was dead, but did it with a ligature instead of by hand, possibly because he wanted to distance himself from this unthinkable act".....For me, that was the final piece of the puzzle as a answer, but shows John Ramsey is absolutely who killed JonBenet.

New and Improved!

Currently available from the Kindle Store

Search This Blog

Things to Come

Things to Come

I just learned the other day of a new book on a case once labeled, "the crime of the century," but now almost completely forgotten. The title: Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? The author: James Kolar, a lead investigator during the reign of DA Mary Lacy, who famously exonerated John and Patsy Ramsey on the basis of a few miniscule fragments of so-called "intruder DNA." Thankfully, Kolar is not among those convinced by that very dubious "evidence." On the contrary, according to an excellent review,New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder, recently published in the Daily Beast, Kolar's book presents strong evidence against the intruder theory -- implying, of course, that the murder was an inside job. I agree.

The publication of this new book, which I promptly ordered as soon as I found out about it, has prompted me, in spite of many misgivings, to once again plunge into the fray of this case, which for too many years, back in the late 90's and early 00's, as a regular poster on several Internet forums, occupied far too much of my attention and proved an endless source of frustration and annoyance, not only to me, but most of my fellow iSleuths. My problem was that I had solved it.